“If Iran kills peaceful protesters, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go," US President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, commenting on the wave of popular protests that began in Iran on December 28, 2025. The protests are unfolding during a media blackout, as Iranian authorities have cut internet services across the country since January 8.
Meanwhile, an account attributed to Israel’s foreign intelligence service (the Mossad) posted a message in Persian on the X platform, urging Iranians to take to the streets: “Go out into the streets together. The time has come. We are with you.”
In response, Ali Shamkhani, political advisor to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, said that “Iran’s national security is a red line and not a subject for reckless tweets.” Later, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Mohammad Pakpour, warned the United States and Israel against what he described as “miscalculations,” vowing that “the Revolutionary Guard and Iran have their fingers on the trigger and are more ready than ever to carry out orders” from Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
All of the above demonstrates that the popular protests in Iran are not merely an internal crisis, but rather a direct arena of international interaction.
An Iranian official in the region said on Sunday (18th of January), the authorities had verified at least 5,000 people had been killed in protests in Iran, including about 500 security personnel, blaming "terrorists and armed rioters" for killing "innocent Iranians".
For its part, the Iranian government has estimated the number of security personnel killed at 150 officers. In light of this repression, researcher in Iranian studies Mervat Zakaria expects the protests in Iran to be contained in the coming period, particularly amid rising arrest rates and the regime’s tightening security grip, alongside some moves by the government of President Masoud Pezeshkian to improve economic and social conditions in an effort to curb public anger and the repercussions of the crushing crisis on citizens.
A deep societal crisis
The renewed protests in Iran stem from a severe economic collapse caused by international sanctions, mismanagement, and rampant corruption, according to journalist and Iran affairs analyst Nouri Al Hamza. Inflation has surged to 40-50 percent, particularly for basic goods, alongside the collapse of the national currency (1.1 million rials to the dollar), rising unemployment among youth, and deterioration in daily living conditions amid repeated electricity and water outages. This comes in addition to ongoing social repression and an escalating pace of executions, with 2025 being the deadliest year, marked by the issuance of more than 2,200 death sentences and the execution of 1,500 people.
In sum, “incidents such as the death of Mahsa Amini are merely sparks that ignite anger accumulated over years,” Al Nouri told Raseef22. In addition, “what is happening today in Iran’s streets is a deep national demand… an attempt to reclaim a country that its citizens want to be free, prosperous, and independent,” said Mojdeh Karimi, vice president of the Italy-Iran Association.
However, the early involvement of the ‘bazaaris’ merchants represents one of the most prominent features of the recent protests. Since 1979, the bazaaris have been among the traditional economic and social pillars of the regime and have benefited from their privileged relationship with the authorities. Their break from this alliance, therefore, marks a deep rift, shifting the protests from the margins of society to the very center of the regime’s power base and transforming them from “social unrest” into a “potential strategic threat” to the structure of authority, as Al Nouri noted in Al-Quds Al-Arabi.
Iran is living through a deep, deferred societal crisis — neither a revolution nor stability — according to the Iranian Studies Center (IRAM). This is the result of economic pressures that have turned life into a struggle for survival, with direct suffering among low-income groups and a deteriorating middle class, compounded by a loss of trust in the political system and its diminished ability to offer hope for the future. It is also marked by a sense of futility among the younger generation (Generation Z), growing thoughts of emigration, the emergence of women as a leading voice expressing discontent, and a widespread feeling of injustice driven by elite privilege and the spread of corruption.
IRAM notes that Iranian President Pezeshkian initially pursued a policy of dialogue and restraint, but control quickly shifted to the security apparatus. The regime now stands at a crossroads: either continue a cycle of repression that deepens its alienation from society and threatens its legitimacy, or turn the crisis into an opportunity for genuine reform and the construction of a new relationship with the public. The center points out that while the regime has lost social credibility, it “has not yet been confronted with a clear institutional alternative,” as the Iranian protest movement lacks unified leadership or shared, clearly defined demands, even as its rhetoric has grown closer to that of the opposition abroad.
As for Washington, it recognizes that the roots of the crisis are internal rather than the result of external interference, but it does not see a credible social or political alternative capable of replacing the current system. Accordingly, the option of direct military intervention to “resolve” the crisis is unlikely in US calculations, given the exorbitant costs of any potential war and the absence of a clear alternative, according to IRAM.
The erosion of the social contract
The Iranian regime is facing a complex crisis that reflects the fragility of its internal and external position, amid the absence of practical solutions or any diplomatic breakthrough. The economic and living crisis outlined above intersects with internal power struggles between reformist and conservative currents within the state, as well as an unprecedented geopolitical and military siege that has further deepened economic uncertainty, according to Amwaj Media and the Asbab Center. Meanwhile, the brief war with Israel (in June 2025) exposed weaknesses in Iran’s defensive capabilities and resulted in strategic losses, alongside a decline in Tehran’s regional influence following the fall of its main ally (the Assad regime) and the erosion of Hezbollah’s military and leadership capacities. This has unfolded amid an aggressive Israeli strategy involving the assassination of Iranian leaders and commanders, along with the support of armed groups and minorities by exploiting Iran’s multi-ethnic composition, according to Asbab.
In light of the above, the regime, by failing to provide basic security during the 12-day war, has violated one of the pillars of the social contract with its citizens, according to the International Crisis Group. The sharp decline in voter turnout reflects the regime’s loss of legitimacy. Amid the current protests, Trump may resort to additional punitive threats (such as tariffs) or cyber operations aimed at disrupting the regime’s capacity for repression, rather than undertaking a costly military intervention.
One factor reinforcing this approach is that any sudden collapse of the regime could lead to prolonged chaos and sectarian and ethnic violence, in a scenario that could resemble what Iraq and Libya experienced and what Syria is currently enduring.
Added to this are the risks of losing control over highly enriched uranium stockpiles, which could fall into unexpected hands, as well as the possibility that the current regime (or its remnants) might resort to a covert nuclear attack as a desperate option, according to the International Crisis Group. Moreover, any US military strike, even if it weakens the regime, would not turn Iran into a stable and responsible power in the short term, and could push its besieged core to launch a “scorched-earth” campaign against the people and US interests and allies in the region, creating chaos that serves Israel’s interests while unsettling Washington’s Gulf allies.
Is US military intervention no longer on the table?
While signing the “Board of Peace” charter for the Gaza Strip on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 22, 2026, Trump said: “We’ll see what happens regarding Iran, and I don’t want to go into the measures I might take,” reiterating his remarks about Tehran expressing a willingness to negotiate and engage in dialogue.
Earlier, Trump had stated: “We have been told that the killing in Iran is stopping, it's stopped, it's stopping. There's no plan for executions.” He neither confirmed nor denied the possibility of military action against Iran, saying only: “We’re going to watch and see what the process is. We will see how things turn out,” which analysts view as “an off-ramp” (or a pretext for an exit strategy), according to a US military official. The Pentagon, the official added, was already prepared to redeploy troops back to Qatar, which could indicate a retreat from a state of readiness for an attack.
Trump had previously asked his national security team to prepare a plan for a “swift and decisive blow” to avoid a prolonged conflict, NBC News reported, citing an anonymous US official. Advisers reportedly warned Trump that they could not guarantee a rapid collapse of the Iranian regime as a result of any American military strike, in addition to the difficulty of defending against a severe and expected “aggressive Iranian response.”
Nevertheless, attention across the Middle East is currently focused on US military movements in and around the region, in search of answers about Washington’s next move, following the ebbing of popular protests in Iran, the success of the regime’s systematic campaign of repression in quelling the wave of public anger, and Trump’s retreat from launching airstrikes that had appeared imminent against Iran, according to academic and head of the Iranian Studies Unit at the Emirates Policy Center, Mohammad AlZghool.
However, AlZghool believes that Trump’s decision to step back from a military strike was not final. He told Raseef22 that military intervention in Iran has not been ruled out entirely, and that subsequent developments may alter some of the factors that had previously prevented Washington from attacking Iran, thereby increasing the chances of escalation by overcoming the obstacles that hindered a strike and potentially bringing the military strike scenario back to the forefront.
For her part, Zakaria believes that Washington’s stance toward Iran depends on the extent of Tehran’s alignment with the West, particularly the United States, on contentious issues, especially as Iran moves toward opening channels of communication with Washington and abandons the execution campaign it had planned against some leaders accused of “instigating and inciting unrest and violence.”
She told Raseef22 that the primary reason Washington has refrained from attacking Iran lies in cost–benefit calculations. Tehran could turn any attack against it into a full-scale war whose repercussions would affect the entire region, particularly through halting shipping traffic in the Strait of Hormuz and blocking the passage of Gulf oil to Europe, along with proxy attacks on US bases in the region, a threat already voiced by Iraq’s Hezbollah Brigades.
Tehran’s strategic predicament and Trump’s calculations
Iran’s recent protests reveal not only the depth of popular discontent but also the fragility of the regime, which now relies on repression after the decline in its legitimacy, according to the International Institute for Iranian Studies (Rasanah). The institute points to a symbolic rejection of the regime through the re-emergence of pre-revolutionary symbols (such as the Lion and Sun flag), reflecting a popular refusal of the current regime’s ideological hegemony and a turn toward secular governance and a new national identity, even if this shift is not yet articulated through a detailed political program.
The strategic dilemma facing the Islamic Republic lies in the impossibility of continuing repression on the one hand, and the fear of genuine reform on the other, according to the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Repression functions only “as a short-term tactic”: each wave of crackdown “deepens public alienation, fuels grievances, and lays the groundwork for future unrest,” creating an escalating dynamic of tension.
At the same time, meaningful reform “could weaken entrenched power centers and unsettle the regime’s delicate internal balance.” The inability to decisively pursue either path explains the recurring cycles of protest. Thus, while the risk of immediate collapse may be ruled out, the Iranian regime is moving along a one-way path toward gradual erosion. Each unresolved crisis narrows its room for maneuver and constrains its options. While it retains the capacity for repression, it is losing the ability to govern convincingly or address the root causes of its crises, according to the same analysis.
In another assessment, Quincy suggests that Trump is more likely to explore a direct deal with Tehran, or “with elements inside the existing power structure, rather than gamble on regime collapse.” This approach would be consistent with what occurred in Venezuela, where he sought to gain “leverage over a weakened government without triggering a total state breakdown,” noting that channels for such engagement “exist and appear to be active.”
Trump’s position on the option of regime change in Iran is based on a purely pragmatic cost-benefit calculation, rather than principled or ideological opposition, according to another report by IRAM. The center notes that Trump seeks to avoid becoming mired in a costly, long-term strategic quagmire that could drain his political capital without guaranteed results.
However, if intervention were presented to Trump as an easy, low-cost “surgical” operation, and he were persuaded that regime change was achievable under those conditions, it is highly likely that he would abandon his reservations and shift toward a more aggressive line. Moreover, the current weakness of checks and balances in Washington gives Trump greater latitude to turn his threats into concrete action, due to limited institutional constraints on his often reckless and impulsive personal decisions, according to IRAM.
What appeared in recent days as Trump’s retreat from carrying out an attack on Iran has not ended discussions over military options, which remain ongoing and are intensifying within the White House and the Pentagon, according to The Wall Street Journal. The newspaper reports that Trump continues to pressure his advisers to develop what he describes as “decisive” military options against Iran, ranging from limited strikes to operations aimed at regime change. This comes as Washington tangibly strengthens its military presence in the Middle East, including the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, advanced fighter jets (such as the F-35 and F-15A), and missile defense systems (Patriot and THAAD).
In light of all this, these plans may be viewed as a means of pressuring Iran, with the potential to use them to support protesters should they return to the streets. Trump has not made a final decision, and the path between military options, sanctions, and diplomacy remains unclear, according to The Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, there is a prevailing belief in the region that this apparent retreat may simply represent a recalculation and a short time window required by on-the-ground conditions to ensure the success of operations, meaning that the confrontation has been postponed, not concluded, according to AlZghool.
This belief is reinforced by multiple factors that prevented Trump from carrying out his explicit threats, including the insufficiency of US military assets positioned near Iran to achieve the objectives of a military operation, opposition from regional powers, a lack of consensus within the US administration, the division of the Iranian opposition, and its weak presence inside Iran. This was accompanied by the failure of attempts to support protesters in Iran by providing promised internet services, made by figures close to President Trump. Ultimately, the protests in Iran were suppressed by force, while demonstrations in support of the Iranian regime — mobilized by state and deep-state forces — took to the streets, after which authorities declared what they described as the “victory of the will of the Iranian people,” according to AlZghool.
This report was published in collaboration with Raseef22.